Tag: Israel

Posted on

Why the Trump Peace Plan for Israel and Hamas Is Unlikely to Succeed

A neutral analysis of political, ideological, and structural barriers to the Trump administration’s peace proposal.

The peace framework proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump aimed to end hostilities between Israel and Hamas by combining ceasefire measures, economic incentives, and regional mediation. Despite its ambition, the plan underestimates entrenched ideological positions, fragmented Palestinian representation, mediator credibility constraints, and implementation risks—factors that comparative peace-process research identifies as decisive.

1. Ideological incompatibility

Hamas does not recognize Israel’s legitimacy and prioritizes armed resistance; Israel treats Hamas as a terrorist actor to be contained or dismantled. Absent reciprocal legitimacy, negotiations on sovereignty and coexistence lack a viable foundation.

Peace agreements rely on a minimum level of mutual recognition. Without it, negotiations collapse into tactical pauses rather than long-term settlements. Transformative peace requires a shift in legitimacy, not just tactical compromise.

2. Fragmentation of Palestinian representation

The Trump plan largely bypassed the Palestinian Authority (PA), the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people. By implicitly engaging with Hamas while marginalizing the PA, the proposal deepens the political split between the West Bank and Gaza. Without internal Palestinian unity, any peace agreement lacks credibility and implementation capacity.

Durable peace agreements depend on unified leadership. As long as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas pursue separate agendas, no framework can represent the Palestinian people as a whole.

3. Misplaced emphasis on economic incentives

The plan’s emphasis on economic growth and infrastructure investment misunderstands the nature of the conflict. The struggle is not primarily about poverty; it is about sovereignty, self-determination, and historical justice. Economic aid cannot substitute for political compromise. Previous attempts to “buy peace” through development funding have failed because they ignored these fundamental issues.

4. Perceived bias of the mediator

The credibility of the United States as a mediator was undermined before negotiations even began. The Trump administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and cut funding to UNRWA was interpreted by Palestinians as clear evidence of pro-Israeli bias. Effective mediation requires both power and perceived impartiality; the U.S. under Trump possessed the former but lacked the latter.

5. Implementation and enforcement challenges

The proposed multi-phase process—ceasefire, disarmament, reconstruction, and administrative reform—faces daunting implementation challenges. The security environment in Gaza remains volatile, and trust between the parties is virtually nonexistent. Without robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, compliance with the plan’s provisions would likely erode rapidly.

6. Lack of regional and legal anchoring

Successful peace agreements in the Middle East have historically relied on regional buy-in and international legal legitimacy. The Trump plan’s lack of clarity on Palestinian statehood, refugee rights, and international law left it isolated from both regional actors and global institutions. Without legal grounding and multilateral support, such initiatives struggle to achieve lasting acceptance.

Conclusion

While the Trump peace plan incorporated some pragmatic components—such as reconstruction, governance reform, and regional diplomacy—it neglected the essential political and ideological foundations of peace. Without mutual recognition, unified Palestinian representation, credible mediation, enforceable mechanisms, and a clear legal framework, the proposal remains a symbolic gesture rather than a viable roadmap to peace.

It appears that Hamas is using the deal as a breathing space and an opportunity to retreat with minimal loss of face. Israel is releasing 2,000 prisoners, and Hamas can regroup and strengthen. The leverage they had—the Israeli hostages—is now gone. The question is whether the majority of Palestinians still recognize Hamas’s legitimacy or whether they are weary and ready to hand over governance to the international community, with Israel playing a significant role in that process.

—

References and Further Reading

International Crisis Group — Israel/Palestine analyses

https://www.crisisgroup.org

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — Middle East and North Africa Program

https://carnegieendowment.org/programs/middleeast

Chatham House — Middle East and North Africa Programme

https://www.chathamhouse.org/topics/middle-east-north-africa

Brookings Institution — Middle East Studies

https://www.brookings.edu/topic/middle-east-north-africa

United Nations — Reports on Israel–Palestine and humanitarian law

https://www.un.org

Posted on

Ceasefire with Hezbollah Is an Early Christmas Present from Israel to Trump

There is celebration and relief among the Lebanese, as well as division among Israelis, following the implementation of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. While it appears at first glance that both parties are adhering to the agreement, both Lebanese and Israelis express a “wait and see” attitude.

Khamenei.ir

This sentiment is reinforced by the 2006 ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, to which the current situation is often compared. Although weapons were also immediately laid down back then, tensions persisted, and there were repeated violations by both sides.

An international commission has been established to monitor this agreement. How effective that oversight will be remains uncertain. Israel reserves the right to intervene if Hezbollah breaches the terms. Things could easily escalate again, and there’s no guarantee we’ll get through the next 60 days without incidents.

Lebanese Army’s Key Role

Alongside countries like France and the United States, the Lebanese Army is expected to play a crucial role in maintaining the truce. Thousands of soldiers will be deployed in southern Lebanon to oversee the situation.

However, several experts criticize this plan, arguing that while it may look promising on paper, the Lebanese Army is relatively weak in practice. Despite suffering significant blows, Hezbollah is still believed to be much stronger, and the army’s capacity to counterbalance it is considered minimal.

Joy Among Lebanese

Still, both fighting parties have reasons to be satisfied with the agreement and a vested interest in its success. For Hezbollah, it is important to project that they have not been defeated, even though the organization has suffered significant losses.

Hezbollah commanders and leaders were killed, weapon depots destroyed—it’s clear Israel dealt significant blows. Israel likely couldn’t have entirely defeated Hezbollah, but had they continued fighting, the situation would have worsened considerably.

Eye on Trump

Israel has its own strategic considerations, particularly as public fatigue with the war grows. Israel is also looking toward Washington, where Donald Trump is set to assume power in two months. You could view this as an early Christmas present to him, a gesture to gain favor.

Israel will expect something in return—likely greater leeway to act in Gaza under Trump’s administration, including potentially expanding settlements there.

Mixed Reactions in Israel

Reactions to the ceasefire are divided in Israel. For tens of thousands of residents displaced from the border region, there is no immediate reason to return home. Israeli media express skepticism about whether Hezbollah will honor the agreement.

Others oppose the ceasefire outright, arguing that Israel missed an opportunity to decisively defeat Hezbollah while the group is weakened. Critics warn that this pause gives Hezbollah a chance to regroup and regain strength.

Bad News for Palestinians

Regardless of the perspective, the ceasefire is seen as bad news for Palestinians. IDF troops no longer required in Lebanon will now be available for deployment in Gaza.

This works in Israel’s favor, as they’re struggling to send enough soldiers to the front. In that sense, this is bad news for Hamas and the Palestinians.